Right On The Right

Tonight, I found myself absolutely disillusioned with my party, my country, and even myself. I went into tonight thinking that a Mitt Romney win would be a win for Conservatism, but then I remembered, his health care plan is absolutely horrendous and includes an abortion provision. I thought, we can do better than this. So, I went to my fallback, Fred Thompson. His campaign was ran horribly, but more than that, he's a flawed candidate. He voted for McCain-Feingold, hired Spence Abraham and despite his endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee, he waffled on abortion. My top two are not true Conservatives.

Mike Huckabee, while a great guy with a great personality, is beyond terrible on foreign policy, and he doesn't know how to make the right allies. John McCain? Immigration. Immigration. Immigration. Next up is Rudy Giuliani. He claims he would appoint Constructionist judges to counteract his liberalism on social issues, but he's lying. Tancredo and Brownback are out, Hunter is incapable of making his case, and Ron Paul is an isolationist. I'm out of candidates to support. I can no longer in full confidence make the case that Republicans deserve to win the Presidency, simply that Democrats deserve to lose it.

As much as I hate the liberal policies presented by the Democrats, I almost achingly long for the level of enthusiasm they have for their candidates. In 2006, I was at least enthusiastic that we had a slate of candidates (Santorum, Allen, Talent) that would advance Conservative principles. Sure, there were bad ones (DeWine, Chaffey), but they weren't enough to steal my optimism. The current slate for 2008 is enough to steal my optimism. I think I've figured out why all politics are local, and it's because nationally, no one seems to be able to be Conservative and be competent. So, I'm going to spending my time focusing on some other things, not the race in 2008. At this point, I don't know who I'll vote for, but I'm done endorsing and trying to talk myself into supporting someone fully. I'm going to pay attention but not give them my attention.

At this point, it's more important for me to do something with influence. It's more important for me to explain Conservatism, debate Conservatism, and sell Conservatism.

I have very few Democrat friends. Most of them are Conservative independents or Republicans, and I'm not going to be modest and not take credit for it. A teacher of mine who is a Registered Democrat told me in plain terms that I may convince her to vote Republican by the end of the year. I don't think I'm a politics as usual man, I'm a big idea man, and I need to embrace that. I need to embrace my strengths, sell my ideas, and build a nation of Conservatives. Basic discussion of news isn't enough, it's discussion of views that is necessary. Be ready for something we've heard too much about from the current slate of candidates but not enough about from the party apparatus. Change.

Update: Given Mitt Romney's disappointing second place finish in New Hampshire, I feel like this is the most important thing for you to read. No scathing rebuttal to the idiots of New Hampshire, just this:

The conventional wisdom is that a second-place finish in New Hampshire for Mitt Romney, even by a slim margin, spells the end of the Romney campaign and he's going to be so far behind McCain and Huckabee that he'll almost have to concede. My question is, why would the man with the most delegates exit the race? You heard me right. There's essentially no result tomorrow that wouldn't result in Mitt Romney having the lead in delegates, unless somehow all of Mitt's supporters would be wiped out in some cataclysmic explosion and Huckabee's supporters from Iowa would show up in their stead. Mitt Romney is at worst, going to walk out of New Hampshire with a sizable lead, two silvers and a gold, and with a good chance of winning or placing in Michigan. At best, he is almost surely the favorite for the nomination. Where's the panic?

I decided to discuss this with some Conservative analyst friends of mine, and they made it an issue of expectations and money. Because Romney has spent millions of dollars on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, he was expected to win them both. Romney also spent millions on name recognition, but I don't see any ridiculous expectations about everyone knowing that his first name is really Willard. Yes, Romney spent a lot of money, but so did McCain, who had to accept federal matching funds to keep his campaign alive. That means his spending is capped by the way, which would make it very difficult for him to face off against Rudy or Huckabee in later states. Romney spent a lot, but to quote him when asked by Chris Wallace about how much of his personal fortune he has spent: "More than I would've liked, but less than I'm willing to." Even more impressive than his own ability to chip in the dough, is his fundraising machine, which has produced more cash-on-hand than any other Republican except perhaps Dr. Paul.

Think about the circumstances surrounding both the Hawkeye Cauci and the New Hampshire primary. In Iowa, an influx of evangelicals duped by Governor Huckabee made it impossible for Mitt to win, but that influx is apparently subsiding nationally, and New Hampshire voters were smart enough to see through it. McCain has a perfect storm in New Hampshire (but no where else), because he has a large voter base from 2000 and plenty of independents to join his camp. The media is ignoring the fact that amongst actual Republicans, Romney is beating McCain. Aren't we trying to select the Republican nominee? Romney has the opportunity to come out of New Hampshire with a solid lead, and enough money and support to compete in Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida. He could get a couple more silvers and another gold in those contests, and be the clear favorite on Super Tuesday. This isn't an expectations game, it's a delegate game, and Mitt's winning big.

Mitt Romney isn't dead if he loses tomorrow in New Hampshire, though I expect a surprise is brewing from Romney's debate performances that'll make things closer than the pundits expect. Mitt can compete in Michigan, go into South Carolina and confront both McCain and the Huckaboom once again, and he has the organization to rival Rudy Giuliani in Florida. Don't hand a man with millions on hand his walking papers just yet...

It seems like Democrats in Congress, and even the talking heads that frequent the Main Stream Media's various cable news shows, are going to ignore all evidence that the surge in Iraq is working. Iraqi casualties are down, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is on the run, and the changing political landscape in al-Anbar Province is a promising start to the complex problem of curbing sectarian violence and convincing the Iraqi population to stand up and fight against al-Qaeda. It appears that no amount of progress on the ground is going to change the tactical situation in Washington however, with the majority party chomping at the bit to clench defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm not a huge fan of "theoretical history," but I have to wonder what the political climate in the country would be like if fate has reversed our fortunes. What if the Supreme Court had handed down the decision that put Al Gore in the White House, through whatever botched recount, and he had to face the realities of a world at war? I think it's safe to assume that a Gore administration would've been just as oblivious to the threat lurking in the shadows of America before September 11th, 2001. I also think it's safe to assume that the intelligence community would've handed the same report to a Gore National Security Advisor and that they'd draw the same conclusions; that al-Qaeda was behind the attack, that Afghanistan was the primary target, and that various other nations are sponsoring or harboring terrorists. I don't imagine Al standing up and giving a "with us or against speech," but I imagine they would be watching for state sponsors of terror.

Let's cut to early 2003 under an Al Gore administration. By this point, various intelligence groups would've weighed in saying Iraq is a state sponsor of terror with links to al-Qaeda. Having been briefed in Congress, Republicans would be making a public case to go to war, and the American people would be just as willing to enter Iraq as they were under President Bush. Faced with a potential political disaster if he didn't act, what would Gore do? I don't see him sitting on his hands with an election just a year and a half away. Gore makes the move and decides to invade Iraq. We all know Gore is screaming about the Iraq War now, but hindsight is 20/20. For the purposes of hypothetical history, he makes the decision to go to war.

The 2004 election rolls by, with both nominees supporting the War in Iraq. Who knows who the GOP would've put up for the nomination, but for the purposes of this comparison, it doesn't matter, Gore sails to re-election. It's now 2006, 2007, and onward, with news coming in that the war is going to be a lot longer, a lot harder, and a lot costlier than anyone could've predicted. We're now facing multiple terrorists threats inside Iraq, from al-Qaeda to Iranian-backed militants. The death toll has passed 3,000 and the anti-war left has begun their call to leave Iraq. What would the Grand Old Party decide to do? We'd stick by Gore and our military and support victory, because that's the way we operate. I can hear the skeptics saying "It's easy to say that now," and it is, but there's some historical basis for my claim. Vietnam began under a Democrat, was escalated under a Democrat, and still, the Republican party ended up being the party for victory and "staying the course." As time passed, the Democrats elected more anti-war Senators and Congressman, and with the eventual nomination of Hubert Humphrey in 1968, it was clear that Democrats were going to cut-and-run from Vietnam. It didn't matter who started the war politically anymore, Republicans wanted victory. I believe the same would've happened under a Gore presidency.

I hear often that Democrats are simply playing politics with the war, but it's worse than that. Throughout history, the Democrat party has committed to victory but changed their minds when the going got rough. Dating all the way back to the Civil War, Democrats made names for theirselves (then copperheads), by opposing military action. This isn't a "peace" movement either, because this tendency even stretched through WW2, when radical Democrats opposed FDR knowing full well what a Hitler victory in Europe and a Japanese victory in the Pacific meant. This isn't a political issue, it's an ideological issue. The simple answer is, no matter how history writes her chapters, Republicans support victory for the United States and Democrats do not. That's how it's always been, and that's how it would be if our fates had been switched.

First off, I'd like to say it's been a long week and a half since I've posted on this site. When I left for my sabbatical, I thought it would surely last for months, but then inspiration hit me, and the fire of free thought was re-kindled in this creative mind of mine. I felt it appropriate to return on this day, which marks 231 years of free thought in a free nation. 231 years ago a convention of patriots gathered and used the fires burning in their hearts and minds to make a radical decision, which would form the greatest experiment in Democracy ever attempted. The first question I'm posing on my return: "What is free thought, and is it truly alive in today's America?"

There are politicians, civil liberties groups filled with lawyers, and journalists that talk and speak like America has become a land of sheep. They despise the President, as I'm sure some of the folks stopping in to check out my relaunch today do, and they can't believe people would support the President's administration. They hate the war, our views on abortion and gay marriage, and can't stand the fact that we wouldn't support affirmative action. They rant and scream, but I wouldn't have it any other way. While some on the other side believe America has become a thoughtless country, our disagreements show that we are still a nation of free thought. Free speech wouldn't exist without free thought, nor would a free press or freedom of religion. No evil, from Hitler to Stalin, from Pol Pot to Osama Bin Laden, has been able to stamp out free thought. The goal of the Islamofascists we're fighting today is exactly that. They want us to submit to their religious beliefs, and give up all thought, and all of our own personal aspirations. Today, Independence Day, is a perfect day to open up new dialogue, and encourage more free thought.

I have strong opinions, and I don't intend to run this site without my opinions shining through. Your opinions will shine through too however, in your comments and on my forums, should you choose to use them. Those of you that disagree with this war, you have a right to your disagreement, but I'm going to try to persuade you. I'm going to open a factual dialogue. That type of conversation seems missing from our public schools, and in the teen world in general. Why are we taking our teachers' words that evolution is the way we came about? Why is global warming automatically fact in America's science classes? Why is tolerance for immoral behavior the right thing to believe? What about affirmative action? Abortion? Why aren't we thinking about these things thoroughly? We have been, and always will be, a nation of free thinkers and free ideas. My goal, is to make us a generation of free thinkers and free ideas. Try going one day without using the words I think. How about one week without I feel? A month without I believe? Examine the possibilities. You're using free thought already.

I attend a high school of between 400 and 450 students. Yes, it's small. Our high school journalism class, of which I'm not a member, puts out the yearbook and occassionally a school newspaper. The paper normally centers around new teachers, activities, and a few editorials about things people find annoying. To put it mildly, it's normally a quick read during lunch then a toss into the garbage can. I was somehow struck to hold on to my copy however when I read a biased anti-war editorial on the back. I'm willing to bet there's no Conservative answer to it coming out of the journalism staff any time soon.

DOWNLOAD THE EDITORIAL: IT'S TIME TO GET INVOLVED IN THE SOLUTION

So since I have no real way of answering this biased piece of garbage in school, I'm going to reply online, and distribute my reply through myspace and some other venues. Allow me to slam this piece by piece, and I'll slam the content, not the horrific grammatical and spelling errors.

However, there are two nation-changing events that should take precedence over everything mentioned. They would be the tragedy of September 11, 2001 and March 17, 2003, the day our President declared our occupation of Iraq.

I'll give Heather (the author) a point for using the phrase "our President." Most liberals won't do that. What you see here is the beginning of a common theme however. She doesn't use the phrase "war" or "operation," she uses the phrase "occupation." She sees us as occupiers, not liberators. We're not "occupying" Iraq. There was a case for war in Iraq. We're assisting a government in setting up a stable government and strong economy (something she mentions later.)

It isn't hard to see why these two events are so important to our nation. If our nation's business capitol would not have been destroyed, killing nearly 3,000 of our mothers, fathers and workers, our current administration would not have the support to send our troops overseas.

Now, at this point, it's pertinent to point out that Heather is a "truther." Truthers believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the Bush administration was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Perhaps she should pick up a book, like THIS ONE by Popular Mechanics, which explains why certain buildings fell and explains the physics of the attacks. Because Heather is a truther, she chose to say "if 9/11 didn't happen, the administration wouldn't of had the support to send troops to Iraq." The phrase isn't exactly untrue, but her motivations are conspiratorial.

When Bush declared our occupation, the mission presented seemed easy. Restore sovereignty to the citizens of Iraq and create a democracy to give their country structure and a strong economic market.

I would prefer the word President in front of Bush, but I might just be nitpicking. Note again that she says he declared our occupation, not our liberation of Iraq or our operation in Iraq. Also, many Generals expected a more complicated mission which included helping the new government. We've exceeded in 2 out of 3 of goals so far, including the two she mentions.

It is now four years later and we are still occupying Iraq. We seem to be unable to combat the sectarian violence and there has been the emergence of new weapons, like I.E.D's. We are also unable to give their society a solid government and police force which is able to assure them safety without our intervention.

"Occupying." We are fighting sectarian violence in Baghdad, but Heather fails to mention that 90% of Iraq is safe. If you leave Baghdad and the Anbar province, you'll enter a safe and free Iraq. Surely much more free than when under the control of the tyrannical dictator Saddam Hussein. The government is solid everywhere, and the police force (along with the Iraqi Army) are working to maintain control. Check and check.

Also, the amount of death spewing out of this 'mission' is disturbing. As of March 28, 2007, 3,233 service men and women have lost their lives at the hands of the G.W.O.T (Global War on Terror), and thousands more have been injured or are suffering from ailments caused by their presence overseas.

She finally uses a word I like to describe Iraq, mission, but she has to offset it in quotations. Notice that she says that 3,233 men and women lost their lives at the hands of the Global War on Terror. Heather is diluting the argument and blaming President Bush for deaths, as opposed to saying that 3,233 men and women died fighting for freedom AGAINST TERRORISTS. She also says people are suffering from ailments caused by their presence overseas. Ailments come from war, and war is necessary. Wake up.

The Veterans Affairs office has been bombared by patients and requests for benefits, compensation, and rehabilitation forcing some 151,000 veterans of the Iraq conflict to be placed on a waiting list. For many, the progress made during their stay at the hospital has regressed.

Progress in the hospital has regressed for MANY? Where? Sources? Any evidence whatsoever to say that MANY people are going backwards because of their treatment?

This sad state of affairs has led me to join forces with the thousands who are displeased with our involvement in Iraq, the possibility of involvement in Iran, and the treatement of our service personnel at home and on location.

On March 17, 2007, I traveled to Washington D.C. to take part in my second anti-war rally. This was sponsored by the A.N.S.W.E.R coalition in partnership with ImpeachBush.org, and 911truth.org. When I arrived into the city I met up with nearly thirty-thousand individuals on the corner of Constitution Ave. and 23rd St. who were in attendance for the same reason. Booths were set up across the National Mall, where volunteers were distributing things like rally signs, flyers, stickers, buttons, and other informational papers. The march commenced at 12:30 P.M. and we marched from the Lincoln Memorial, across the Arlington Memorial Bridge, to the North parking lot of the Pentagon. There, the rally itself began.

I was in Washington D.C. on March 17, and I saw her rally. First off, she did not meet up with nearly thirty-thousand individuals. That was our side, The Gathering of Eagles. Her rally didn't take up nearly as much space as ours did, and they basically penned themselves off while the Eagles spread across the National Mall. Most of the information passed out at that rally was propaganda claiming we were planning on attacking Iran or "truther" documentation. The conspiracy loons were out in force.

To the left, you can see a picture of Heather in D.C.. She's carrying one of those wonderful "9/11 was an Inside Job" posters. She was joined by members of International A.N.S.W.E.R. which was founded by communists, and outright anarchists and socialists. Here was her side. Here was mine. They really didn't start their march at the Lincoln Memorial, because that site was surrounded by members of the Gathering.

The rally was the first time I've ever witnessed animosity from a police force patrolling an event. They deterred pedestrians from joining the rally, re-routed busses away from the parking lot which the A.N.S.W.E.R coalition obtained permits for, and in one instance, they used physical force to break up a group of youth activists.

The only incident that I read about, and the only incident I seem to be able to find, is when police broke up a group of Black Bloc Anarchists who chose to move cement police barricades. As for rerouting pedestrians and buses, they did it to our side also. We were prevented from gathering in an area next to the anti-war protest, despite the fact that we had permits. We listened to the police, because we knew it was for our own safety and to prevent conflict. I suppose Heather sees it from a different angle because the police are "government" and "government is the enemy."

The current shape of our nation is something un-recognizable from what the forefathers set out to create many years ago. They fought to create a society with a voice, a voice to choose who represented them, a voice to choose laws which would affect them, and a voice to live in a personally indepedent nation.

The American people spoke and re-elected President George W. Bush. The forefathers even knew the threats of the Islamofascism, and they combated the barbary pirates way back in the early 1800s. The American people spoke on March 17th and out-numbered Heather's little anti-war rally. To your right, you can see what happens when Americans speak, and choose to turn their backs on the "truthers" and on the socialists and the communists. People do speak, and Democracy DOES live.

I'm asking you - a student or staff member of Brookfield High School to become more aware of the current events happening around the world. There are many media outlets available to you to accomplish this. Newscasts, magazines, and even reading the headlines of your daily paper will help to keep you informed. Most importantly, - REGISTER TO VOTE! Casting your opinion is the most valuable right you have as an American citizen.

I believe that if people step up and fulfill the duties they have as Americans, the shape of things to come will have a much more optimistic outlook.

I can finally agree with Heather. You SHOULD vote, and you should get your opinion out there. I'm confident that if people were more involved, Heather would see her article backfiring, and more Americans voting to support victory as opposed to anti-war rhetoric. We're winning the war.